Did the "Hindi speaking" people of north India ever do anything significant in history?

Did the "Hindi speaking" people of north India ever do anything significant in history?

Once you omit:
The Indus valley region of Pakistan, Punjab region and Kashmir
Buddhist ideology from Nepal
Dravidian/Hindu culture of South India
Muslim contributions of the Persianised/Turkic Mughals.

I cannot think of a single thing other than Ganges river that is significant in north India.

Is this the single most cucked group in all of Asia?

>They don't speak Armenian in Nagorno-Karabakh
Trash map.

They don't speak Ossetian in Ossetia

triggered are we?

Almost all of Indian civilization developed and happened in the Hindi region. If anything, it's the Indian core. However it went into steep decline in medieval times and it's rich culture only survives in neighboring regions

>it's rich culture only survives in neighboring regions

The classic wewuzz argument. Do you have any evidence whatsoever to support this horseshit?

Where are the monuments, great cities, civilisations, cultures, ideologies that originated from this region?
As far as historical records are concerned, the neighboring regions are responsible for all of it.

I mean... what's the point if it's not accurate?

It is pretty fucking accurate as far as the topic is concerned.

>Buddha
>Ashoka
>Mahabharata
Pretty much everything happened there

t. Davit Armeni Kevoladorian

>Buddha
Nope.

>Ashoka
Lasted 30 years. Shunned native cultures and converted to Buddhism. wow.

>Mahabharata
Literally who tier. Pajeet babble with not a single shred of physical evidence.

>Buddha wasn't from North India

Yeah you have retardation

>Yeah you have retardation

Buddha was from Nepal you fucking retard.

>500B.C.
>Nepal

I'm sorry to tell you you have a mental disability

>Nepali people weren't invented yet

So a date is an argument to wewuzz another region that has nothing to do with your people.

This is why you are a fucking meme Pajeet

According to your logic, every Byzantine emperor was born in Turkey

>>it's rich culture only survives in neighboring regions
>Nepal didn't exist, so Buddha was a Pajeet.
>> Modern names did not exist, so naturally everyone is a Pajeet

It's amazing how your mind works.

buddha was not an ethnic pajeet, he was probably similar to uygurs of today

On the same topic, what did punjabis ever do in history besides getting conquered by virtually anybody who crossed the indus river?

They fought Alexander the great and he acknowledged their greatness, they were important in ancient mathematics and spawned Sikhism.

Birthplace of IVC
Birthplace of Vedic culture
Fought and recognised by Alexander
Fought off Mongols
Actually retained their culture and language regardless of Islamic, Hindu or Sikh religions

Try again Pageet

>Birthplace of IVC
geographically sure, but can we say that the people are 100% the same as the people who inhabited the IVC? I would say that punjabis and hindkowans are the people MOST related to the ivc dwellers, and that pajeets below punjab aren't related to ivc to the same extent.
>Birthplace of Vedic culture
debatable
>Fought and recognised by Alexander
sure
>Fought off Mongols
debatable
>Actually retained their culture and language regardless of Islamic, Hindu or Sikh religions
partially true, if muslims had wanted it, the indian subcontinent would be muslim, usually they did not want converts because taxing non believers was a better alternative, iranics and turkics also viewed themselves as racially superior to subcontinental muslims and did not even pray in the same mosques as them so there's that too

Punjab and Sindh was largely the birthplace of IVC. A lot of people have settled from all over Asia, but most tribes who claim to be native are in fact native. Though a lot of central asian and afghan migration since forever.

The region of Ravi river was the birthplace of Vedic culture according to plenty of sources.

>The region of Ravi river was the birthplace of Vedic culture according to plenty of sources.
it is, but can you say punjabis living there now are the same as the people who brought the subcontinent sanskrit and hinduism?

>did not even pray in the same mosques as them so there's that too
Source? That's oddly specific

Dude, the people who live there now are by definition going to be more related than any other group.
If you are suggesting any mass migration, the burden of proof is on yourself.

>sanskrit
Fairly certain that linguistic evidence points to a Central Asian origin.

eh too lazy to produce the sources, but the tl;dr of it was that the khiljis, babur and some of the afghan/iranic invaders did not like indians too much, saw them as feeble and weak and wanted to exploit their work for money/wealth rather than converting them. They had their own mosques. Babur himself said the subcontinent is a terrible place, filled with horrible people, the only redeeming factor was it's got lots of resources.

What I'm trying to point at is why try and identify with your invaders, who so clearly historically despised you, rather than with your fellow pajeet who looks no different to you and shares the same culture and languages.

>looks no different to you and shares the same culture and languages.

The Indian subcontinent has more cultures and languages than any other region of Asia. It's the last place you can say shares anything.

>pajeets aside from the chink ones in the north east look the fucking same
>indian groups in pakistan look no different from the average pajeet either
K

>Kumbaya.

Either you are Pajeet trash or Afghan trash.

Which one?